Communication Basics: Starting rather than Waiting

Double-blind studies are great, but there are problems with them as well.  First, they are in short supply compared to the wealth of all knowledge.  Second, double-blind studies change their minds a lot.  So while the goals are admirable:  1) we need to raise the quantity of things studied this way, and 2) we need to raise the quality of studies; we can't entrust all of knowledge to them.  I say this tongue in cheek, but if we relied only on them for our physical health, we might starve while waiting.

I have people every day come into a nutritional store where I work and they are confused and befuddled by the latest double-blind or not so double-blind studies. Peer-reviewed is also an admirable goal, but still that leaves a lot that we know that is unstudied.  So what should we do?  Should we wait?  Should we ignore their impact and race ahead?  Should we through all the studies into the Boston Harbor since they can't agree?

Double-blind is good to eliminate the placebo-effect.   But that doesn't mean that all previous results in tests were wrong due to a placebo effect.  It means some of them were.

Likewise, peer-reviewed is an excellent quality, but peers can mess up.  That is why we have jury trials.  Because the peers of law professionals sometimes mess up.  So what should a person do?

There is good evidence to show that a lot of knowledge has been tested and tested and tested over generations and is still holding up pretty well.  For me, the past yields a lot tests as well.  You just can't turn a blind eye to the failures along the way.  You need to re-test those.

But also whey look for problems where there are none?  Are we going to throw aside the insights of a successful coach like John Wooden, because he didn't double-blind study all his ideas and peer review after every game?  Sports psychology is a great branch of further study, but it is in no place as a Johnny Come Lately to replace everything.  It is though in a place to look at the cracks or fault lines with due humility.

When I first met John Wooden, he first gave me a copy of his success pyramid.  He also gave me his personal phone number and said he would be swilling to talk with me as a younger coach.

He taught me two great things.  Start at the beginning and don't run from the calling you have been given.

The lesson here for us is that even double-blind studies and peer-reviewed studies have a starting point.  You have to begin from somewhere.at sometime.  We don't have all day for all decisions.  That is why we add clocks at sporting events and at work and at school.  The thing to do during a time block is to determine what puts you at the best starting point of all your options.  I would choose Wooden's base over sports psychology's base at the moment.

The point is to both start closer and to start faster.  To have no starting point is to start further from the starting point.  That is the danger of studies.  It is that no one finds a closer place to begin.   Remember, somewhere is always better than nowhere and now is always better than later, when it comes to starting. That same advice does not necessarily apply to finishing.  

Sports psychology has already begun to study Wooden's insights.  I just hope his being rated as the number one coach by ESPN and be other polls will still count for something.  His teaching and his coaching were tested over and over many times.   Let's remember that a double-blind study and a peer-review paper a full test does not make.every one a teacher or a coach.

What do think the sports psychology people could help with is studying his leadership idea "The Emotions Are Your Enemy". My SWOT analysis says that is a possible weakness in his approach alongside his strengths.  But before that study is done, I think a person has to do their own trial and error in life to some degree and get started.  To start with Wooden's base in his success pyramid seems to be a safe place to start.  Take care.


Sincerely,

Jon

Communication Basics: Pondeing the Emotions of What and the Logic of Which

I have an idea that is worth pondering and might later be worthy of acceptance rather than rejection.  The idea is that the emotions of the nervous system may deal more with the question of what and the logical part of the nervous system with the question of which.  The emotions may be more connected with "know" and the logic with "discern".   As an example, there is a Bible passage in Isaiah, where it refers to "before he knew to discern".

Here is another example of what I mean.  Emotions like fear or confidence don't seem to distinguish between how and why questions. But logically these distinctions are important in the course of action.  Could it be that the emotions simply indicate whether we appear strong or weak?  If strong, then we feel confidence.  If weak, we feel fear.  Could it be that the logical aspect then looks more at the issue of opportunity or threat?

If these hints are on the right course, then it could be that the emotions and logic deal with both parts of a SWOT analysis, and also in the same order chronologically.  Strengths and weaknesses would be the concern of our emotional assessment and opportunities or threats would be the concern of our logical assessment.

So it may be worth pondering, whether in fact emotions do address more the question of what: strong or weak.   It also may be worth pondering whether logic does address more the question of which: opportunity or threat.  In the end, we'll find out one way or the other if these ideas are the strong and courageous or of a weak and shrinking kind.  Happy pondering.


Sincerely,

Jon